Instead,
in what smacks of perverse pride, he boasted how the aggression on Iraq, in
which cruise missiles, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium were rained down
from afar on an already devastated country was “one of the swiftest and most
humane military campaigns in history.” Trumpeting the swiftness of an invasion
-- which at the same time ignores the military instability in Iraq, as attested
to by the deaths of one-point-something US soldiers a day since Mr. Bush jumped
the gun and declared major military operations over -- is in keeping with the
false bravado of the selected president. The oxymoronic “humane military
campaign,” where more than 6000 civilians killed
are beneath the US administration’s consideration, is merely a further
Orwellian skewering of the English language by the neoconservatives.

The
president who vacations on a golf course while US troops are under daily attack
in Iraq has the gall to use the all-inclusive personal pronoun: “We have
carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat
to civilization.” (author’s italics) That it must be vicariously absolving for
the Commander-in-Chief, who ducked Vietnam and went AWOL from the National Guard,
was evidenced by his air-pumping clenched-fist pronouncement of“Feels good”
at the commencement of Shock and Awe.

Standards
of conventional moral thinking are tossed out the window. Mr. Bush
hypocritically criticizes the torture chambers of the Ba’athist regime while
ignoring the US slide to the level of a torture nation.

“The
terrorists thrive on the support of tyrants and the resentments of oppressed
peoples,” offers the president. Strange statement coming from an occupying
power beset with terrorist attacks that necessitate its nervous,
light-on-the-trigger troops to don Kevlar-body amour when forced out among the
Iraqis.

Mr. Bush
blames enemies, which he identifies as Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists,
for forestalling the installation of democracy. On the CBC National newscast of
8 September, the British Minister of War Geoffrey Hoon maintained that there is
not a resistance to the presence of the occupiers in Iraq but rather there are
“criminal elements.” So now hoodlums are also taking shots at the mighty
occupation forces?

In
addition, Mr. Hoon had“all but
admitted” to the House of Parliament that the US and UK had underestimated the
requirements of occupation.

These
“[e]nemies of freedom are making a desperate stand [in Iraq],” said Mr. Bush
and “they must be defeated.” The psychological defense mechanism of projection,
whereby one attributes qualities of self onto others, seems to be clearly
coming to the fore. Returning to the “irrelevant” UN with cap-in-hand and
pleading with Old Europe to supply troops to the chaotic occupation reeks of
desperation.

As well,
Mr. Bush’s tautological harping about the “enemies of freedom” is becoming a
little bit tiring -- like a movie seen too often.

The
Commander-in-Chief asserts: “We are staying on the offensive, with a series of
precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given
to us by Iraqi citizens.” This leads to the assumption that the terror bombings
and the killing of occupation soldiers have been defensive responses.

Mr. Bush
makes ineloquent attempts at sophistry. Reports Mr. Bush: “Our military
commanders in Iraq advise me that the current number of American troops --
nearly 130,000 -- is appropriate to their mission. They are joined by over
20,000 service members from 29 other countries.” However, despite this
“appropriate number of American troops” Mr. Bush sees the need “to share the
burden more broadly” and hence “a third multinational division to serve in
Iraq” is requested. So are more troops required or is this just for the sake of
sharing?

Besides,
hadn’t the neo-conservatives dismissed then-Army Chief of Staff General Eric
Shinseki’s requirement of several thousand occupation troops as "wildly
off the mark"?

Mr. Bush continues
his tirade against the freedom-hating enemies. “Terrorists in Iraq have
attacked representatives of the civilized world, and opposing them must be the
cause of the civilized world.” It begs the question of just what this civilized
world is. When asked what he thought of western civilization, Mohandas Gandhi
sagely replied that it would be a good idea.

Mr. Bush
demonstrates his generosity to the members of the UN by giving them “an
opportunity” -- to come in from the darkness of irrelevancy, supposedly -- and
accept the gift of “responsibility.” Yes, the UN is invited “to assume a
broader role in assuring that Iraq becomes a free and democratic nation.”Unstated is the implicit surrender of ultimate
world authority to the US cabal fronted by Mr. Bush -- a surrender to a regime
that committed the “supreme crime” of aggression as defined by international
law at Nuremberg. It is a welcome to the morass of despair in a nearly
obliterated Iraq, of which the US is a prime accomplice.

Washington
style generosity is where the outside world is encouraged to share in the costs
and dangers of Iraq but not in the “responsibility” of power or the divvying up
of corporate plunder.

Into this
morass, Mr. Bush calls for “the orderly transfer of sovereignty and authority
to the Iraqi people. Our coalition came to Iraq as liberators and we will
depart as liberators. Right now Iraq has its own Governing Council.” This is
the Governing Council from which one member has already resigned describing it
as window
dressing for Washington’s rule. The US has made clear on many
occasions that what constitutes an “orderly transfer of sovereignty and
authority to the Iraqi people” will be dictated by US interests.

It is a
wonder that Americans can so easily have the wool pulled over their eyes. The
2000 election was stolen (Greg Palast has clearly elucidated the scandalous vote
rigging in Florida on which even the Democrats fell silent); the
Bush regime lied Americans into the invasion of Iraq (plainly exposed by even
the Johnny-come-lately corporate media now); Americans sat by as the fat cats
soaked up a big tax cut; and they continue to sit on their hands as corporate
crooks enjoy their ill-begotten booty. Where are the protests? Where are the
people organizing against the stealing of their freedoms, quality of life, and
democracy? John
Kaminski has elaborated at length about the apparent ease of
surrender by Americans of their precious rights and ideals.

The rest
of the world stands witness while Americans watch their country being stolen
from right in front of their eyes. Part of the solution surely lies in
mobilizing against the corporate theft of the US. Insofar as the corporate
media were unswerving in the interests of corporate America, it is palpable
that Americans must press for their own media free of corporate manipulation.
Odd that the people must assert their rights to the airwaves belonging to
them.

Americans
have been lulled into suspending disbelief for far too long. The stretching of
credulity poses an exceedingly taut challenge to freedom’s elasticity. A
ferocious snap is looming.

Kim Petersen lives in Canada
and is a regular contributor to Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached
at: kimpetersen@gyxi.dk